JUDGMENT Fletcher, J. - This is an appeal by the Plaintiff from the judgment of the second Subordinate Judge of Hooghly, dated the 30th of April 1912, dismissing her suit. The suit was brought by the Plaintiff for the purpose of obtaining a declaration that a certificate purported to have been made against her on behalf of the Secretary of State for India in Council under the Public Demands Recovery Act, 1895, was illegal and invalid. 2. The Plaintiff purchased the property described in the schedule to the plaint on the 15th of April 1905 at a sale held by a Receiver appointed by this Court in its Original Jurisdiction. 3. The property in question formerly belonged to a family of Mukherjees, some of whom instituted a suit for partition in this Court. In that suit a Receiver was appointed and under the orders of the Court, a portion of the estate was sold for liquidation of the debts of the estate. The Plaintiff became the purchaser at that sale, and the sale to her was duly confirmed by the Court. 4. Under the provisions of the Bengal Drainage Act, 1880, certain works known as Rajapur Drainage scheme were executed for the improvement of, amongst other properties, the property subsequently purchased by the Plaintiff. For the payment of the amount that they were liable to pay under the terms of the Act, three of the Mukherjees executed on the 4th of February 1908 in favour of the Secretary of State for India in Council an instalment bond. The Mukherjees subsequently made default in payment of certain of the instalments under the bond, and thereupon under the provisions of the Public Demands Recovery Act, 1895, a certificate was filed in the Collectorate against them, the certificate being No. 507 of 1900-1901. When the estate passed into the possession of the Receiver, his name was added or substituted in the certificate in the course of the year 1903-1904 and after the purchase by the Plaintiff, her name was added or substituted on the record on the 9th of July 1906. The Plaintiff objected to this procedure, but the Revenue authorities declined to interfere. Thereupon the Plaintiff instituted this suit. 5. When the case first came on for hearing, the learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit on the preliminary grounds that sec. The Plaintiff objected to this procedure, but the Revenue authorities declined to interfere. Thereupon the Plaintiff instituted this suit. 5. When the case first came on for hearing, the learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit on the preliminary grounds that sec. 244 of the CPC of 1882 was a bar to the suit, and further that the suit was barred by limitation. The Plaintiff preferred an appeal to this Court, and the order of the learned Subordinate Judge was reversed and the case remanded for trial in the lower Court. 6. The case that we have now to deal with is on the footing that the amended certificate is a certificate filed against the Plaintiff. 7. This question must be dealt with quite apart from the charge given by the Bengal Drainage Act, 1880, for the expenses of works executed under the terms of the Act. 8. The only point we have to consider in this appeal is, was the certificate validly made against the Plaintiff ? The answer to that question depends on whether or not the Plaintiff is a person "liable to pay the public demand." 9. Now sec. 28 (c) of the Bengal Drainage Act, 1880, directs that the Commissioners after making the classification therein mentioned shall proceed to apportion the total cost of construction upon the improved lands and shall draw up a statement showing the amount payable by each landholder. 10. Sec. 31 of the Act provides that the total sum so made payable with interest shall be a first charge upon such lands. 11. By sec. 36 it is enacted that whenever the Commissioner of the Division shall confirm any apportionment and report, or whenever one month shall elapse from the publication of any report without any appeal having been preferred, he shall pass an order declaring the sums payable in respect of the lands and the persons liable to pay the same to be determined. 12. 12. As soon as any apportionment has been determined, the Collector is authorised by the terms of sec, 37 of the Act to cause a notice to be served upon any landholder who has not paid the sum payable by him, requiring him within one month to pay such sum with interest or to enter into an engagement for the payment by instalments over a period of not more than 10 years of such sum together with interest on the instalments for the time being remaining unpaid. 13. Under the terms of this section the Mukherjees executed in favour of the Defendant the instalment bond of the 4th of February 1908. 14. Sec. 38 provides (amongst other things) that if any landholder having entered into such an engagement fails to discharge any instalment payable thereunder, such instalment together with interest shall be recoverable under the provisions of any law for the time being in force for the recovery of public demands. 15. It is very obvious that under the terms of this section the person liable to satisfy the "engagement" entered into with the Defendant is the person or persons who gave it, and that under the terms of the section the provisions contained in the Public Demands Recovery Act, 1895, for summarily recovering the amount remaining due under the terms of the "engagement" can only be put in force against the persons who gave it. The Plaintiff in this suit is not such a person. 16. The Bengal Drainage Act, 1880, has, however, been amended by the Bengal Drainage (Amendment) Act, 1902, and under the provisions of the amending Act a new sec. 36 A has been inserted in the Act authorising the Collector to revise an order passed under sec. 36 as to the names of the persons liable to pay by reason (amongst others) of any change having taken place in the ownership or joint ownership of the land. 17. The learned Senior Government Pleader has informed us that no such revision has taken place in the present case, and, therefore, it is not necessary to consider what liability, if any, the Plaintiff would have been under, if the order made under sec. 36 of the Act had been revised by the Collector. 18. 17. The learned Senior Government Pleader has informed us that no such revision has taken place in the present case, and, therefore, it is not necessary to consider what liability, if any, the Plaintiff would have been under, if the order made under sec. 36 of the Act had been revised by the Collector. 18. In the result, the present appeal must be allowed and a decree passed in favour of the Plaintiff declaring the certificate invalid as against her. The Defendant must pay to the Plaintiff her costs both in this Court and the Court below. We assess the hearing fee at Rs. 500. Richardson, J. I have read this judgment and agree.